RE: netconf WG charter proposal

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Faye,

I am still slightly concerned and slightly confused. The proposed netconf charter speaks about configuration management, but the enns I-D introduces elements for a full protocol for managing devices, including what the draft calls 'state information', and an optional channel for asynchronous events transmission. On the other side clear statements have been made by the ADs about SNMP remaining the standard Internet protocol for performance and faults management (and even for configuration management wherever the market or technology environment accepts SNMP for these purposes). 

I think that we are missing a clear direction and framework. Andy tried to propose something in his slides in SF, but as I understood it was more his own vision, rather than an agreed strawman proposal. Maybe it's too early, and maybe we are too much in the eye of the beholder to be capable to drive now towards a clear framework. But yes, let us work starting from here!  I hope that the process will be open enough to allow for inputs that can 'straighten out' the outcome even if it is not exactly the way the main pushers see it. 

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Faye Ly [mailto:faye@pedestalnetworks.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 10:19 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Randy Bush
> Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: netconf WG charter proposal
> 
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Yes, I think draft-enns needs a lot of work.  In the 
> meanwhile, I think
> the charter(Rev2) proposed by Andy is quite clear that it is 
> focused on
> the configuration protocol.  Hopefully we can get the draft-enns
> straighten out once the charter is approved.
> 
> What is your thought?
> 
> -faye
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 7:02 AM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: netconf WG charter proposal
> 
> > 
> > </ad-hat>
> > 
> > > If I understand well what you are saying, separation between the
> > > configuration and non-configuration data is something that needs
> > > to be realized both at the level of the retrieval mechanisms in
> > > the protocol, as well as in the data model. I suggest that the
> > > later be specifically added to the 'requirements for standard
> > > data models in order to fully support the Netconf protocol' in
> > > the netconf charter proposal.
> > 
> > something keeps bothering me here.  i am not sure i can fully put
> > my finger on it.  but it's something like worrying that we are
> > trying to overly describe what we *don't* do.  can we just talk
> > about configuration, and not get into characterizing what other
> > types of data there might be?
> > 
> > or are we seriously considering that the wg should also cover
> > setting and retrieval of other data, e.g., state data such as
> > interface counters etc.?
> > 
> > or maybe my discomfort is due to lack of clue.
> 
> draft-enns.. defines 'configuration information' and 'state
> information'. It also specifies separate mechanisms to transport data
> belonging to each one of the two categories. Can we really avoid
> discussing what each one would contain? 
> 
> Dan
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>
> 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>